Although direct democracy may take a long time when coming to decisions and conclusions on certain issues, I believe it is the best form of government. In the way that everyone has a say in whatever the issue is and can actively participate in the game. I understand that representative democracy is definitely more efficient and productive, but from seeing the realities of corruption in America's government due to representative democracy, I would definitely vote for direct democracy. I believe that's the only real way people can actually get and achieve what they want and need in government.

Also, in this utopia, there is no need for war, there is no need for speed in government as there are no pressing issues. Everything is perfect (or envisioned to be). Direct Democracies's faults have always been with speed, it is the slowest government style. That is why many current democracies are representational, it mimics direct democracy, but still can have the speed of a parliamentary system. However, we do not need representation anymore, since we can now be our own representation. As stated before, our current modern day technology allows for the possibility of a direct democracy. We can all be at the government conference through the use of computers and networking technology. We can all vote through electronic means.

In a game like this, direct democracy would be best since it would ensure each player is required to engage with how best each state should be run and their decisions. For a game, representative democracy creates another barrier between gameplay and the gamer that I don't believe is needed.
Furthermore, this is ideally what one would want in a thought experiment such as this one just because it would help lessen the factors the decrees are attempting to reduce (such as corruption etc.)

I think it should be a representative democracy. The reason for this is so that decisions can be made faster. That is the issue that happens often in different organizations and this slows down the process of getting things done. With a representative democracy, this allows things to get done with a greater efficiency. Unfortunately, there are down sides to having a representative democracy too. The down sides would be that the representatives would not always make the popular decision. The issue with a direct democracy would be that everything would have to pass a vote, which would take too much time. I think that since we would be voting for the representatives, we should trust their decisions.

With today's technology, states can easily be run via direct democracy. Voting would be as easy as it would be to vote on this question. Not everyone would be required to vote every single time, but would be allowed to use their voting power on those issues a person is interested in. Representative democracies will become obsolete, as too much power is put into the hands of too few - which goes against the overarching theme of equality presented in "The Manifesto".

I think the best way for a state to be ran would be elected representatives. I think in a world like this, It would require the participation of all citizens of the state to get the most accurate results in an election. In our society that is what we strive for today, however there would be no political parties like today. I think it would be a more pure voting process without the strong political ties and affiliations, thus making potentially making voting a more appealing thing. The representatives would be elected on their own personal beliefs and hopefully have the states best interests at heart rather than their own personal agendas.

I feel that states would be best suited to be governed through a representative democracy. From a historical standpoint, the most successful societies have been those who elect representatives of the public to vote and make decisions. Furthermore, under a representative democracy, issues that occur within the game would likely give insight to a number of real-world conflicts that have occured, since so many nations around the globe have taken on this form of government.

Direct democracy is an ideal world in my opinion. If by popular demand the government adopts anarchy or communism, then at least it was at the will of the people and not determined by a supreme leadership. When you get into representative democracy, you run in to the same problems as in the real world--partisanship and political agendas.

I stand by my original assessment on representative democracies. We are trying to imitate teh world (accordingly) and I think that the representative democracy model illustrates the way the world ought to be run especially in the 21st century. Direct democracies are troubling because they will permit the pursuit of privatized goods. Plus how can we know that these systems will maintain our order? Communisim surely is a way to hell for our country because we are imitating the real world. Our population wants the best and representative democracy will uphold this idea. We don't want our people being sold to other doctrines or faith that is going to put our real world system at stake.

I think that the state should be run through direct democracy. I believe that this is the best type of government because it would accurately represent what the people vote for. Representative democracies sounds like a good idea, but we must take into account who these representatives are and what is it that they want. They could either vote for their benefit or for the benefit of the entire population, but we cannot really be sure what their votes would turn out to be. I know that direct democracy may not be equal rule since it is what the majority of people vote for, but in comparison to other types of government it offers the most voice to the people.

I also agree that the state should be run through a direct democracy. I believe if you have representatives, they will have a hard time choosing options if they themselves have their own opinions as well. If everyone votes or participates as a group then everyone from the bottom up will have a voice or at least a part of the decision making processes of the world. This way, people who are at the bottom will feel equal to the ones at the top, in terms of decisions with the state.

I agree with this, I think this option gives the most power to the people. It is tough though when a representative is elected by a group of people when citizenship is chosen. Since it is chosen, it could perhaps create a biased state, but perhaps the outcome could be a better representative since most people should agree with his beliefs. This could create conflict between states if you have two states that have extreme beliefs that oppose each other. But, would it create a state that is better suited for its citizens? As far the elected representatives... they would have to have the states best interest at heart, but what they may see as the right decision may not be what a certain percentage of the population would see as the right thing. Ultimately, it would probably just end up setting up political institutions similar to what we have today, which is not what this game would do. It could eventually evolve that there are political parties... which I think would happen when you have states filled with people who share the same beliefs. Instead of republican or democrat, it could be more like since you are part of this state, then you must think X, Y, and Z. But what system would be best for citizens to have equal say in their state? Although there are potentially flaws with having elected representatives, it does give equal participation for citizens to vote on who they want.

With the rules already in place, it is hard to imagine any other type of government other than communism. With players unable to own private property and control inheritance, the members of this society will be unable to control much of their futures any way. If we are going to base this government on needs of the society as a whole, then a democracy will not be the best way to further to accomplish this. Democracy is not equal rule, it is rule of the majority. Even if a specific piece of legislation hurts the general public, it can (and often does) easy get passed so long as it appears to offer benefits to many of that society's members, or more often, serves to disadvantage a homogenously hated group among that society (ex. A law preventing African Americans from attending college will certainly hurt the overall public good in that it will prevent a large percentage of society from fully developing and realizing its potential, but the rest of society (the majority) will benefit from the reduction in competition for admittance to universities, and thus Caucasian, Latino, and Asian populations will increase their own future opportunities, and thus seek to pass the law).

With Communism, the will of the society will be taken out of the hands of an oppressive majority, and placed into the hands of the state, who can pass legislation aimed at improving the society as a whole, even if it is in opposition to the general desires of that community. More over, the majority, which often controls an overwhelming percentage of the resources, will be prevented from bullying the less advantaged members of that commonwealth.

i voted for a representative democracy, and i see also that the majority of others did, but i cant help wondering if it is just because we are being influenced by the way things are. i tried to think outside of the ideological bounds of the society we currently live in, but found it really hard to even imagine having any other form of running states. Perhaps we should experiment with other ways, though, because it could very well be that I am only thinking this way because I am being influenced by the current prevalent ideological structures and the purpose of this game to is to imagine alternate political structures.

I totally think you're right about not being able to really think "outside the box" because we are very influenced by our government and how it's run. But I think it would definitely be good to try new ways and methods to run the government. Especially from the apparent corruptions in our government today, that alone should be a factor as to try out a new form of government. I believe democracy is a great form but direct democracy is a even better form. I think this is the only way people can actually get a real say in issues that matter to them, and voice their opinions to bring change for the better.

I agree with you endocytosis, in terms of being influenced by the way things are. Thoughout time, history has proven to society that running states should be done via representative democracy is the way to run a state. This game will give players a chance to view, be apart of, and see the final outcome of alternative political structures.

The states should be run by representative democracies, allowing a direct democratic vote of the ideals of that individual. I feel that due to many cultural difference which cannot be erased in the Utopian society, despite the lack of borders, people have so many varying opinions that would need to be filtered and scrutinized for the whole. A representative of the most agreeable ideals for the populace would allow a more centralized figure to stand up fort he issues of their constituents, while not having every person quarrel over the "best" method.

I think states should be run by representative democracies. I think so because this type of government identifies the populations through a representation of bodies that reflect who the voters are. As opposed to direct democracies, representative democracies represent not only the people, but an ideology. This democracy is a little contrived because elected representatives have their own agendas (sometimes), but ultimately the will of the people is expressed - without all the hypocrisy.